AppellateAdvisor Law Library Background

Case Summaries

Welcome to the Appellate Advisor blog! Please feel free to scroll through the case summaries in chronological order, or search by keyword, category, or tags. It may be helpful to start with the Welcome Post.

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000476

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The imposition of the upper term of imprisonment violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and was unauthorized under section 1170, subdivision (b) as he did not expressly waive the right as to the aggravating circumstances relied on by the sentencing court to justify imposing the upper term nor stipulate to their truth.

First Holding:

The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only if there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the upper term. The facts underlying those aggravating circumstances must have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Authority:

PEN 1170

Second Holding:

The Sixth Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 755–767

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082, 1086

Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490 [Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.]

Third Holding:

An express waiver of a federally-derived jury trial right is required even in cases in which the circumstances make it apparent that all involved—the trial court, the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant—assumed that the defendant had waived or intended to waive the right to a jury trial. That is, the right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances, which is guaranteed by the federal constitution, may not be forfeited without an express waiver by the defendant.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 47

Fourth Holding:

Here, appellant did not expressly waive his right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances and therefore has not surrendered his claim. No aggravating circumstances were pled in the complaint; as such, appellant’s plea, and his corresponding waiver of his constitutional rights, did not encompass any aggravating circumstances. A defendant does not waive his right to a jury trial on aggravating sentencing factors by pleading no contest to substantive offenses. Even if forfeiture did apply, we would nevertheless exercise our discretion to reach the issue. Such discretionary review is typical when a forfeited claim involves an important issue of constitutional law or a substantial right.

Authority:

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 50

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887, fn. 7

Fifth Holding:

We cannot determine from this record beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found every aggravating factor relied on by the trial court properly proven. Several of the factors relied on by the sentencing court were fact-specific, which a reasonable jury could disagree on. Moreover, the sentencing court relied on factual recitations in the police reports, which counsel did not stipulate to admitting into evidence for the purpose of establishing aggravating factors, and which contained hearsay. Additionally, we cannot necessarily assume that the record reflects all of the evidence that would have been presented had aggravating circumstances been submitted to the jury.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775 [To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court]

Sixth Holding:

One court has held that the rule 4.421(c) residual clause [which was relied on in part by the trial court here, and lists as a potential factor in aggravation “Any other factors statutorily declared to be circumstances in aggravation or that reasonably relate to the defendant or the circumstances under which the crime was committed” exceeds the legislative delegation in section 1170.3 and thus violates the separation of powers clause of the California Constitution. It reasoned that because the 4.421(c) residual clause specifies no criteria for its use in jury factfinding, it supplies prosecutors unrestricted authority to make fundamental policy decisions on an ad hoc basis by letting prosecutors draft aggravating factors to submit to the jury not based on any statute or rule in order to expose the defendant to increased penalty. The court held that rule 4.421(c) is no longer appropriate under the current determinate sentencing law.

Authority:

Lovelace v. Superior Court (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1099

Sentencing

Case 000475

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We remand to the trial court with directions to clarify its section 654 findings for count 3 (false imprisonment). If the trial court clarifies on remand that section 654 applies, we direct it to modify the judgment to stay the sentence for count 3 and amend the abstract of judgment accordingly. We also direct the court to correct the determination of credit for time served.

First Holding:

Section 654’s applicability is reviewable on appeal even if, as here, the issue was not raised with the trial court.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354, fn. 17

Second Holding:

Section 654(a) protects against multiple punishment where the crimes arise from either (1) the same act or omission or (2) an indivisible course of conduct united by a single intent and objective. In the absence of any reference to PC 654 during sentencing, the fact that the court did not stay the sentence on any count is generally deemed to reflect an implicit determination that each crime had a separate objective subject to substantial evidence review.

Authority:

People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 335

People v. Tarris (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 612, 626

Third Holding:

The court made comments suggesting a section 654 stay applied to the false imprisonment term at the original sentencing but was silent on the matter at resentencing. The trial court originally sentenced the defendant to a total prison term of more than 20 years. At the sentencing hearing, the court said it would impose and stay the middle-term sentence for count 3 (false imprisonment) primarily based on the fact that all of these facts are essentially running together, that there was some overlap with the other counts, as it viewed the false imprisonment as being somewhat encapsulated in the rape, witness intimidation, and domestic violence.

A few months later, the court recalled the sentence, believing the defendant had been given too harsh a sentence, and resentenced the defendant to nearly five years less. At that resentencing hearing, there was no mention of the applicability of section 654. In light of the uncertainty regarding what the trial court intended regarding a finding under section 654, it appears appropriate under these circumstances to remand the matter to permit the trial court to clarify.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 834, 839

Fourth Holding:

The defendant is entitled to one day additional credit, because the correct calculation must include the date of arrest. Further, it is the trial court’s responsibility to calculate all credit for time served through the date of the resentencing, and the duty cannot be delegated to the custodial facility personnel.

Authority:

eople v. Kennedy (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 385, 394

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29

Immigration, Standard of review

Case: 000474

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order granting the defendant’s application under section 1473.7 because he did not understand the immigration consequences of his pleas.

First Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate their convictions if they can establish that their convictions are invalid due to prejudicial error impairing their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential immigration consequences of their conviction. To show prejudicial error, the noncitizen must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the noncitizen would have rejected the plea if the noncitizen had correctly understood the immigration consequences. In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Any assertions by the noncitizen must be corroborated with objective evidence. Objective evidence can include facts in declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the noncitizen’s immigration concerns, and the charges the noncitizen faced.

Authority:

PEN 1437.7(a)(1)

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316, 320-321

Second Holding:

We review independently whether noncitizens have demonstrated a reasonable probability they would have rejected a plea offer had they understood its immigration consequences. Where the trial court has based its rulings on a cold record, or, in other words, only documentary evidence, we need not defer to trial court fact finding.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319-320

Third Holding:

The noncitizen’s subjective misunderstanding qualifies as sufficient error under the statute.

Authority:

People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 909–910 [focus is on noncitizen’s own error in not understanding the plea would subject him to mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion]

Fourth Holding:

There is a critical difference between (1) being notified the plea may have immigration consequences and (2) being told the plea will make one immediately deportable. When counsel provides only the first advisement in a situation calling for the second, the advisement is insufficient.

Authority:

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 523, 533 [failure to advise of certain immigration consequences of plea rendered representation constitutionally deficient; advisement that plea might have adverse immigration effects insufficient where deportation would be mandatory]

Fifth Holding:

At the time of the plea in 1996, the defendant’s counsel did not have a duty to discuss mandatory immigration consequences as they would now. That duty arose only with the decision in Padilla. When counsel had no professional obligation, we cannot infer that counsel in 1996 told the defendant of the mandatory immigration consequences. The lack of any proper advisement in the record corroborates the defendant’s claim.

Authority:

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356

People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 905-906 [where immigration consequences clear and virtually certain, after 2010 counsel now must advise client of those consequences]

People v. Bravo (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 1063, 1073-1074 [advisement given in 1997 insufficient to satisfy section 1473.7]

Sixth Holding:

The defendant’s ties to the United States are sufficient evidence that the defendant would have focused on mandatory immigration consequences.

Authority:

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 771 [deep ties to the United States constitute contemporaneous evidence that avoiding deportation would have been a primary concern]

Seventh Holding:

Where a noncitizen is no longer in custody and triggering events in the statute have not occurred, the motion is timely.

Authority:

People v. Perez (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1008, 1016

Abstracts and Minutes

Case: 000473

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it shows an incorrect code section for the defendant’s conviction.

Holding:

[GARY NOTE: There was no authority indicated in the opinion for the correction of the abstract. The error is so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to provide authority. Nonetheless, there is authority the court could have cited. The appellate court may direct the trial court to correct clerical errors in an abstract of judgment.]

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

Amelioration, Discretion, Sentencing

Case: 000472

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On this appeal from the defendant’s resentencing under section 1172.75, the matter is remanded for the court to exercise its discretion on whether to resentence the defendant under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.

First Holding:

Under the Three Strikes law as originally enacted in 1994, an individual convicted of a felony offense following two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies was subject to an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of no less than 25 years. The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 lessened the prescribed sentence for a third strike defendant whose current offense was not a serious or violent felony. It included a retrospective provision – section 1172.126 – that provides relief to prisoners already serving third strike sentences where the third strike was not a serious or violent felony.

Authority:

People v. Conley (2016) 63 Cal.4th 646, 651, 652

People v. Superior Court (Kaulick) (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1292

Second Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature enacted section 1172.75 that invalidates certain sentencing enhancements and requires courts to recall sentences with those enhancements and resentence them by applying any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and promote uniformity of sentencing

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Third Holding:

The Reform Act applies at a section 1172.75 resentencing if section 1170.126’s substantive requirements are satisfied, including the following: (1) the defendant is eligible under the Reform Act; and (2) the trial court does not determine that resentencing the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Eligibility for resentencing must be decided on a count-by-count basis. A defendant is ineligible under the Reform Act if he was armed with a firearm during the offense for which the third strike sentence was imposed.

As to the public safety component, the People must prove the facts upon which the determination is based by a preponderance of the evidence. Relevant factors include: (1) the defendant’s criminal conviction history, including the type of crimes committed, the extent of injury to victims, the length of prior prison commitments, the remoteness of the crimes; (2) the defendant’s disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated; and (3) any other evidence the court, within its discretion, determines to be relevant in deciding whether a new sentence would result in an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1170.126

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 850, 852, 878

People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 674, 688

People v. Estrada (2017) 3 Cal.5th 661, 669

Fourth Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. When a court is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers, the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

In applying the clearly indicates test, it is almost always speculative for a reviewing court to say what the sentencing court would have done if it had known the scope of its discretionary powers at the time of sentencing. Remand for resentencing is required unless the sentencing court (1) announced it was aware of forthcoming legislation and explained how it would exercise its discretion under that legislation or (2) made “the kind of definitive statements to clearly indicate it would not impose a lesser sentence under any circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 776

Fifth Holding:

The trial court’s focus on defendant’s public safety risk was under Romero and section 1385(c). Those standards do not cover the section 1170.126(g) standard for purposes of satisfying the clearly indicates test. Under section 1385(c), the court has discretion to dismiss an enhancement unless there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.

This likelihood standard is not equivalent to or inclusive of the unreasonable risk of danger to public safety standard described in section 1170.126 for purposes of the clearly indicates test. And in denying the defendant’s request to dismiss his prior strikes under Romero, the trial court operated under a circumscribed power to depart from the sentencing norm established by the Three Strikes law. The circumstances had to be extraordinary for defendant to be deemed to fall outside the spirit of that law.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1029

People v. Buford (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 886, 902-903

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 378

People v. Mayfield (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1096, 1105

Sixth Holding:

On remand, the trial court may consider the entire sentencing scheme given the inherently integrated nature of felony sentencing for a multiple-count conviction.

Authority:

People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1257-1258

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425 [the full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant]

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles

Case: 000471

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Although not technically incorrect, the minute order is ambiguous and could be construed representing as a court finding that the court did not make. The court ordered a slight rewording.

Holding:

[GARY NOTE: The court did not cite any authority for its order rewording the minute order, but if one considers that the original order could be construed to mean something it did not, then this act is akin to ordering correction of a minute order. Though none was cited, the following cases do support the court’s authority to order corrections in abstracts of judgment and minute orders, often in the context of where the minute order or abstract does not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement.]

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts with jurisdiction have the power to order correction of abstracts of judgment that do not accurately reflect the oral judgment of the sentencing court]

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471 [rendition of judgment is an oral pronouncement; the record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order and abstract of judgment]

Second Holding:

Add holding blurb here

Authority:

ADD AUTHORITIES HERE

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000470

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be amended to make clear the trial court found an inability to pay fees and fines, and to provide the correct number of prejudgment credit days.

First Holding:

At sentencing, the trial court found that the defendant did not have the ability to pay the court fees. The abstract of judgment, however, imposes a court security fee of $200 and a criminal conviction assessment of $150. We will direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Costella (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1, 10

Second Holding:

Based on counsel’s representations, the court awarded credit for actual days served that was 30 days less than he actually served. Therefore, the court’s minute order should be corrected to reflect the proper number of credit days, and the abstract of judgment should be amended accordingly.

[GARY NOTE: The court did not cite any authority for this correction, but there is plenty. I have listed authority the court could have cited.]

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Chilleli (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 581, 591 [The failure to properly calculate custody and conduct credit is a jurisdictional error that can be corrected at any time]

People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 647

People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 428, fn. 8

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case 000469

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where on resentencing under PC 1172.75 the trial court imposed a term of 51 to life instead of the correct 45 years to life, the remedy is for the appellate court to simply modify the judgment to the correct sentence.

First Holding:

When a count is reversed or other part of the sentence is stricken, the sentencing court must, upon remand, be permitted to consider its other discretionary sentencing choices.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857

Second Holding:

When the defendant first appealed his conviction, this court ordered the sentence reduced from 51 years to life to the correct 45 years to life, as the trial court had miscalculated the term for the Three Strikes sentence. The superior court modified the sentence to 45 years to life in accordance with the remand from the first appeal. Many years later, the defendant came before the court for resentencing under section 1172.75 because his sentence had been enhancement by a now-invalid prior prison term enhancement. Hearing full argument from the defendant at the resentencing hearing, and acknowledging that the court had the authority to reduce the sentence beyond striking that invalid enhancement, it exercised its discretion not to do so. But it reimposed the original sentence of 51 years to life.

Given this, it is unlikely that a remand for full resentencing in light of the error that imposed a longer term would result in a term even shorter than the correction of 45 years to life from the incorrect 51 years to life. We can easily conclude the court “undoubtedly” would not make any choices more favorable to appellant when it is required to impose a shorter mandatory term of 45 years to life. Under the circumstances of this case, modifying the judgment, rather than remanding for full resentencing is appropriate.

Authority:

PEN 1260 [among options available to reviewing court, it may modify judgment or reduce punishment imposed]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473 [appellate court exercised discretion to modify judgment where the court could determine the sentence that the trial court undoubtedly would have imposed]

Discretion, Elements of crime, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000468

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in ruling on the defendant’s petition for mental health diversion, and substantial evidence does not support its ineligibility finding. The court also erred by accepting a guilty to plea to conduct that is not criminal. We reverse defendant’s possession of marijuana conviction, conditionally vacate the remainder of defendant’s guilty pleas, conditionally reverse the judgment, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with section 1001.36 and this opinion.

First Holding:

Section 1001.36 authorizes pretrial diversion for criminal defendants suffering from certain recognized mental disorders. To qualify, criminal defendants must show they are both eligible and suitable for the program. A defendant accused of a qualifying offense is eligible for mental health diversion if, within the last five years, a qualified mental health expert has diagnosed the defendant with a qualifying mental health disorder that was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A qualifying diagnosis creates a rebuttable presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense, which may only be overcome if there is clear and convincing evidence that the disorder was not a motivating factor, casual factor, or contributing factor to the defendant’s involvement in the alleged offense. For purposes of the diversion statute, a qualified mental health expert includes, but is not limited to, a psychiatrist, psychologist, or a person whose knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education qualifies them as an expert. The statute’s plain language does not limit a qualified mental health expert to a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other medical doctor.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b), (f)

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

People v. Gonzalez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1138, 1141 [appellate court interprets a statute to effectuate the law’s purpose, applying a plain and commonsense meaning to the statute’s text]

Second Holding:

A substance use disorder registered counselor must complete hundreds of hours of classroom education and supervised training regarding addiction counseling, at least over 2,000 hours of work providing counseling services in an alcohol or drug program, and must pass an examination confirming their skill and ability. Under these circumstances, a substance abuse disorder registered counselor possesses the knowledge, skill, experience, training and education to make a substance use disorder diagnosis under the statute.

Authority:

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 9, sec. 13040(a)-(d)

Third Holding:

Where there has been a qualifying diagnosis, it is the People’s burden to overcome by clear and convincing evidence the statutory presumption that the disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. Here, the People did not present any evidence to support a finding that defendant’s substance use disorders were not a motivating, causal, or contributing factor to his commission of the charged drug and firearm possession offenses. Argument by counsel is not evidence in the case and cannot be relied upon to support the trial court’s order.

Despite the lack of evidence, the trial court ruled, based on “common sense,” that possession for sale offenses like defendant’s could not be causally connected to a substance use disorder and that the Legislature could not have intended section 1001.36 to apply to possession of narcotics for sale cases because a vast majority of the felony cases before the court involved drugs. In essence, the trial court carved out a wholesale exception to mental health diversion for possession for sale offenses that does not appear in the plain text of the statute. This was error. It is a corollary to fundamental principles of separation of powers that courts must apply the statutes as written unless doing so would yield absurd results.

Authority:

People v. Harlow (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 485, 491

Fourth Holding:

The absence of evidence showing defendant’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses cannot satisfy the People’s burden to rebut the statutory presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Authority:

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391,404 [the absence of evidence proving that a petitioner’s mental disorder was a factor in the commission of the offenses is not substantial evidence supporting a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner’s mental disorder was not a factor in the commission of the offenses]

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 687-689 [By finding the statutory presumption had been overcome by the lack of indication in the police reports that the defendant was suffering from the mental disorder at the time of a robbery, the trial court improperly shifted the burden to the defendant to affirmatively prove that her mental disorder contributed to the offense.]

Fifth Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion and its factual findings for substantial evidence. When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence. We presume a trial court’s order is correct and indulge all intendments and reasonable inferences to support it. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume a trial court knew and applied the law.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448-449

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Sixth Holding:

It was error for the court to accept the defendant’s guilty plea to an act that was not criminal. The information alleged that he was in possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. Possession of marijuana is not criminal unless it is of more than 28.5 grams. By accepting defendant’s guilty plea to conduct that is not criminal, and sentencing him for that offense, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly, we shall modify the judgment to vacate defendant’s conviction and sentence on that count.

Authority:

People v. Mutch (1971) 4 Cal.3d 389, 395-396, 399 [conviction for conduct not prohibited by statute is void]

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 784-785 [the defendant could not have been guilty of violating Penal Code section 115 by attempting to file a forged instrument because, as a matter of law, the writing he was charged with and admitted forging, a death certificate, is not an instrument within the meaning of section 115]

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000467

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $400, believing that $400 was the minimum. The appellate court revised the judgment to impose the intended minimum restitution fine of $300.

First Holding:

The minimum restitution fine for a defendant convicted of a felony is $300.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(b)(1)

Second Holding:

We may review an asserted legal error in sentencing for the first time on appeal even if the defendant did not object in the trial court. When sentencing error does not require additional evidence, further fact finding, or further exercise of discretion, the appellate court may modify the judgment appropriately and affirm it as modified.

Authority:

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 594

People v. Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1441

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000466

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75 a defendant serving a life term under the original Three Strikes law, the court must resentence the defendant under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 unless it finds that release would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the public as that phrase has been construed under the Reform Act.

First Holding:

The Three Strikes Reform Act and section 1172.75 may be interpreted to operate harmoniously, so that the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act may constitutionally apply at a resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. Section 1172.75, when applied to Third Strike defendants seeking relief from their indeterminate terms under the Reform Act’s ameliorative provisions, incorporates the substantive requirements of the Reform Act, including the resentencing provisions in section 1170.126. For purposes of resentencing, section 1172.75 incorporates section 1170.126’s discretionary public safety override. Thus, a petitioner such as the defendant who is being resentenced under section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing provided that he can satisfy the substantive eligibility criteria established in section 1170.126 to obtain resentencing pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

Authority:

PEN 1170.126(f) [a trial court shall resentence an eligible defendant unless the court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing the petitioner would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety]

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 850, 861-862, 877

Second Holding:

If the superior court determines that resentencing the defendant pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the court shall reimpose an indeterminate term. If the superior court does not determine that resentencing him would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and the defendant is otherwise eligible under the Reform Act, the court shall resentence him pursuant to the revised penalty provisions of the Reform Act.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 878

Third Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Jurisdiction

Case 000465

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(Gary Note: This did not result in any relief but reminds us which appellate court has jurisdiction for  denials of petitions for a finding of factual innocence in misdemeanors or felonies or proceedings in which no accusatory pleading was filed.)

Here, the defendant appealed from a denial of his petition under PC 851.8 to seal and destroy his arrest record with a finding of factual innocence. While the court issued orders short of that finding, it did not make a finding of factual innocence. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal found it had no jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Appellate Division of the appropriate county superior court.

First Holding:

Section 851.8(a) and (b) govern the process for requesting sealing and destruction of arrest records based on factual innocence in cases in which the person was arrested and no accusatory pleading was filed. Subdivision (a) states that the person arrested may first petition the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the offense to destroy its records of the arrest. Subdivision (b) provides that in any case in which the law enforcement agency denies or fails to respond to the petition, the person arrested may file a petition in superior court asking to have the records sealed and destroyed. The court may grant the petition based on a finding of factual innocence if it concludes that no reasonable cause exists to believe that the arrestee committed the offense for which the arrest was made.

Authority:

People v. O’Day (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 426, 432

Second Holding:

The appealability of orders made under section 851.8 is governed by subdivision (p), which provides: “A judgment of the court under subdivision (b), (c), (d), or (e) is subject to the following appeal path: (1) In a felony case, appeal is to the court of appeal. (2) In a misdemeanor case, or in a case in which no accusatory pleading was filed, appeal is to the appellate division of the superior court. The record does not show any accusatory pleading was filed in this case, and the pleadings in the record indicate that no charges were ever filed. Thus, no felony was charged. Accordingly, jurisdiction over this appeal belongs with the appellate division of the superior court. We therefore transfer this appeal to the Appellate Division of the [originating county] Superior Court pursuant to Government Code section 68915.

Authority:

People v. Nickerson (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 33, 39–41

Third Holding:

No appeal taken to the Supreme Court or to a court of appeal shall be dismissed for the reason only that the same was not taken to the proper court, but the cause shall be transferred to the proper court upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just, and shall be proceeded with therein, as if regularly appealed thereto.

Authority:

GOV 68915